Dignity therapy for patients with brain tumours: qualitative reports from patients, caregivers and practitioners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most individuals with brain tumours experience distress or cognitive impairment during the illness trajectory, potentially causing decreased quality of life, strain on interpersonal relationships and altered sense of self or of the world. Symptoms of brain tumour and treatment can cause increased reliance on others and decreased in sense of dignity. Dignity is an important consideration when caring for patients, as it can influence decisions at end-of-life. Dignity therapy (DT) is a therapeutic intervention that was developed for patients near the end of life. DT encourages the patient to reflect on the life lived, including important roles and sources of pride, resulting in the development of a 'Legacy Document'. DT has been shown to enhance quality of life and dignity, and reduce psychological and existential distress for patients at the end-of-life. There is little literature on the effectiveness of DT, or other quality of life interventions, in brain tumour populations; This paper reports on the feasibility of conducting DT with this population, and presents qualitative data gathered from patients with brain tumours who participated in DT, their caregivers, and their Dignity Therapists. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Odette Cancer Centre in Toronto. One of five Dignity Therapists conducted the intervention; time data was logged. Immediately after the intervention, patient participants, their caregivers, and Dignity Therapists were sent an open-ended, self-report survey about their experience with DT. Qualitative content analysis was conducted by an impartial reviewer. Average time taken to conduct the intervention was determined. RESULTS: Fifteen out of the 17 recruited participants (88%) completed the intervention; 2 were unable to complete the intervention due to progressing disease. Qualitative data was categorized according to two main areas of interest: Acceptability and Impact. Four participants, 5 caregivers and 4 care providers completed the qualitative surveys. All 4 patient participants reported benefits of DT that related to communication and/or advanced care planning (ACP). Dignity therapists felt that the impact on their patients was positive, and reported satisfaction as a clinician. CONCLUSIONS: The low attrition rate for the intervention suggests that DT is feasible in this population, though the required time to complete DT might be difficult for healthcare practitioners to provide within the recommended timeframe for this therapy. Positive qualitative reports on the effect of DT from patients, caregivers and dignity therapists alike indicate that DT is a promising intervention for this demographic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it